Gynaecomastia correction: A review of our experience

Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery. 2014;47(1):56-60 DOI 10.4103/0970-0358.129624

 

Journal Homepage

Journal Title: Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery

ISSN: 0970-0358 (Print); 1998-376X (Online)

Publisher: Thieme Publishers

Society/Institution: Association of Plastic Surgeons of India

LCC Subject Category: Medicine: Surgery

Country of publisher: India

Language of fulltext: English

Full-text formats available: PDF, HTML, ePUB

 

AUTHORS

Arvind Arvind
Muhammad Adil Abbas Khan
Karthik Srinivasan
Jeremy Roberts

EDITORIAL INFORMATION

Blind peer review

Editorial Board

Instructions for authors

Time From Submission to Publication: 27 weeks

 

Abstract | Full Text

Introduction: Gynaecomastia is a common problem in the male population with a reported prevalence of up to 36%. Various treatment techniques have been described but none have gained universal acceptance. We reviewed all gynaecomastia patients operated on by one consultant over a 7-year period to assess the morbidity and complication rates associated with the procedure. Materials and Methods: Clinical notes and outpatient records of all patients who underwent gynaecomastia correction at University Hospital North Staffordshire between 01/10/2001 to 01/10/2009 were retrospectively reviewed. A modified version of the Breast Evaluation Questionnaire was used to assess patients satisfaction with the procedure. Results: Twenty-nine patients and a total of 53 breasts were operated on during the study period. Patients underwent either liposuction alone (6 breasts - 11.3%), excision alone (37 breasts - 69.8%) or both excision and liposuction (10 breasts - 18.9%). Twelve operated breasts (22.6%) experienced some form of complication. Minor complications included seroma (2 patients), superficial wound dehiscence (2 patients) and minor bleeding not requiring theatre (3 patients). Two patients developed haematomas requiring evacuation in theatre. No cases of wound infection, major wound dehiscence or revision surgery were encountered. Twenty-six patients (89.7%) returned the patient satisfaction questionnaire. Patients scored an average 4.12 with regards comfort of their chest in different settings, 3.98 with regards chest appearance in different settings, and 4.22 with regards satisfaction levels for themselves and their partner/family. Overall complication rate was 22.6%. Grade III patients experienced the highest complication rate (35.7%), followed by grade II (22.7%) and grade I (17.6%). Overall complication rates among the excision only group was the highest (29.8%) followed by the liposuction only group (16.7%) and the liposuction and excision group (10.0%). There were high satisfaction rates amongst both patients and surgeon. Eleven patients (37.9%) had their outcome classified as ′excellent′ by the operating surgeon, 16 patients (55.2%) as ′good′, 1 (3.4%) as ′satisfactory′ and 1(3.4%) as ′poor′. Conclusion: Gynaecomastia is a complex condition which poses a significant challenge to the plastic surgeon. Despite the possible complications our case series demonstrates that outcomes of operative correction can be favourable and yield high levels of satisfaction from both patient and surgeon.